Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

My money's on the Koreans.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:Interesting table [Postby shark bait » 12 Oct 2018, 14:52 ]to inform our discussions about the future RFA.
Yes , it is flat-lining (or worse).

But add it to Navy, makes for 4.5k civilians.
The same as with Air.
Army 9.6k.
Aren't the percentages in line. Almost too much; smacks of them (TLBs) having been given such a target, in the overall MoD drive to reduce 'civilian' headcount?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Unions push for SSS built in UK.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/governm ... say-union/

Nothing new, but this paragraph summarizes the current status of ship yards in UK.

The carrier programme has already seen 900 jobs threatened this year. The closure of Appledore Shipyard, operated in Devon by Babcock, was announced recently and the Rosyth Dockyard, also operated by Babcock, in Scotland is facing the threat of hundreds of job losses. Workers at Cammell Laird on Merseyside are on strike after a third of the skilled workforce were told they were to be made redundant.

On the other hand, (at least) Babcock and Camell Laird are getting significant money on Frigate and RFA maintenance / upgrade programs. I guess this means many of the workers at risk of losing jobs, are related to "ship building" = welding and structural development. National Shipbuilding Strategy is losing its basement very quickly. So action is needed urgently.

I personally prefer to cancel T31e and push SSS to be built in UK. Both built within UK will not be good, because anyway there is no sustainable order from MOD in long term = anyway the workers will be banned after SSS and T31e.

If SSS is to go abroad, T31e shall start soon. But, as T31e is an internal competition, if BAE wins, Babcock's already almost dead ship building section will die. If Babcock wins, Camell Laired ship building section will see big shrink, and they will more focused on RFA maintenance work.

I really think adding 2 more T26, and our sourcing some blocks (funnel, bow section, stern section) of T26 to Camell Laird or even H&W and Babcock, will be a better work share program. (although not related to SSS).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

In some ways the NSS only works if BAe is barred from bidding for the T-31e to guarantee that another yard keeps going. So Give BAe the SSS so that the large facility in Scotland is maintained and keep another one going with T-31e, sorted. Of course it won't happen and I will be very surprised if a UK yard gets the SSS unless the Government need to PR win because something else is up the creek, I wonder what could fall into that category over the next few months?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:what could fall into that category over the next few months?
We can scrap the VFM rules unilaterally, but open tender only after we will have :D left
- on the other hand, SSSs could be 'complex warships' ;) by definition, and then a waver applies
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

If the government start man handling such a small market it effectively gives industry a blank cheque book. Paying above market prices is more or less state aid, which sets a dangerous precedence for the next competition where the looser can hold the MOD to ransom.

It's not good for any one in the long run, especially not the skint MOD. The Polar Ship proves British industry can win a more complex build at an international competition, that model should be followed again.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting example of the costs involved with building naval vessels indigenously, and the increased costs incurred. Canada's two new Queenston class replenishment ships are costing them CAD$2.3Bn, whilst the RFA's four Tidespring class ordered for Korea cost US£800m in other words the Canadian vessels cost five times as much. This is why having a policy of only building naval vessels on shore does have a major impact on procurement budgets. Would people be willing to spend three, four or even five times as much to build the FSS in the UK as against having them build overseas?

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Aethulwulf »

Lord Jim wrote:Interesting example of the costs involved with building naval vessels indigenously, and the increased costs incurred. Canada's two new Queenston class replenishment ships are costing them CAD$2.3Bn, whilst the RFA's four Tidespring class ordered for Korea cost US£800m in other words the Canadian vessels cost five times as much. This is why having a policy of only building naval vessels on shore does have a major impact on procurement budgets. Would people be willing to spend three, four or even five times as much to build the FSS in the UK as against having them build overseas?
I suspect the CAD$2.4Bn are projected through life total costs (inc. purchase, man, maintain, dispose), whereas the US$800m are just purchase costs.

There are great difficulties in comparison of costs across nations, as the figures are rarely calculated on the same basis.

In the UK, the cost of building ships on-shore is normally guesstimated at around 20% higher than building overseas. Of course the actual cost differential for any given project can vary a lot from this 20%, but not all the way up to 500%.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

That was the cost to build the two ships. I do not know the relevant exchange rates though to compare CAN$ to US$ to £.

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by clinch »

Lord Jim wrote:Interesting example of the costs involved with building naval vessels indigenously, and the increased costs incurred. Canada's two new Queenston class replenishment ships are costing them CAD$2.3Bn, whilst the RFA's four Tidespring class ordered for Korea cost US£800m in other words the Canadian vessels cost five times as much. This is why having a policy of only building naval vessels on shore does have a major impact on procurement budgets. Would people be willing to spend three, four or even five times as much to build the FSS in the UK as against having them build overseas?
Although foreign yards don't produce money for the British economy. As Sir John Parker pointed out in his report, there is a significant economic benefit from building ships in the UK - a benefit which should be considered in any cost comparison with foreign yards.

From Sir John's report,
The shipbuilding sector is a traction engine for its long supply chain and for the regional economy in the areas where shipyards are significant employers. The sector provides high wage / high skill employment in relatively deprived areas of the UK. Taking the MOD’s initial estimates of around 15,000 direct jobs (and c. 10,000 indirect supply chain jobs) in UK shipbuilding and repair due to MOD spending, and the preliminary estimate of £1.5bn added value to the UK economy, this implies each directly employed shipbuilding and repair worker contributed an average of approximately £59,100 to the economy annually.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:Interesting example of the costs involved with building naval vessels indigenously, and the increased costs incurred. Canada's two new Queenston class replenishment ships are costing them CAD$2.3Bn, whilst the RFA's four Tidespring class ordered for Korea cost US£800m in other words the Canadian vessels cost five times as much. This is why having a policy of only building naval vessels on shore does have a major impact on procurement budgets. Would people be willing to spend three, four or even five times as much to build the FSS in the UK as against having them build overseas?
1 CAD = 57p at the moment, giving a total cost of the Canadian ships of approx. £1.31b - so overall they each cost very approximately 3.2 times as much as the UK ships (£1.3b for 2 vs £800m for 4). Though, as noted above, those figures may be for very different things.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

A sovereign design and build capability for combat ships, aircraft and fighting vehicles has strategic value, as well as promoting the high tech industry the UK needs.

There is little strategic value maintain a cargo ship production capability, in an industry that will never stand on its own two feet.

For the former it is absolutely worth paying a little more for domestic production, and in the case of aircraft that investment is easily returned through economic activity. For the latter it is not worth paying through the nose to maintain an unsustainable activity with little strategic value.

An international competition that includes local economic gains in the value assessment is the correct way forward.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote: times as much as the UK ships (£1.3b for 2 vs £800m for 4)
Isn't the speculation that our £1 bn will be enough for 2 (but not the third one; even officially only an option)?
shark bait wrote:investment is easily returned through economic activity [... vs ...] it is not worth paying through the nose to maintain an unsustainable activity with little strategic value.
- something that is called a defence industrial policy
- ours only got a 'refresh' ...though one could say the more focussed NSS and Combat Air Strategy are worthwhile companions
- and because of that low key approach, not much of it made it to the press
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

The comparison was the two new Canadian Tankers vs the four Tidesprings for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I do not know about the costs for the FSS, though the situation with the programme now being 2+1 I do.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:The comparison was the two new Canadian Tankers vs the four Tidesprings for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
I know, may be I should have added that I tried to move it from apples to oranges to granny smiths vs. coxes:
"As the selected shipyard for non-combat vessels, Vancouver Shipyards will be responsible for the construction of all Joint Support Ships at their shipyard in North Vancouver, British Columbia. "
- in the heated debate about SSS sourcing it has been stated (I believe it was by the RN) that the ship type could easily be classed as complex, when having tried that on tankers would have been "stretching it"

Canada, having just one for each ocean was sort of forced to combine the functionality, whereas we have the mass that gives the option for specialising... and the benefits of that were fully reaped in the unit cost of the Tide class.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The comparison was the two new Canadian Tankers vs the four Tidesprings for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
I know, may be I should have added that I tried to move it from apples to oranges to granny smiths vs. coxes:
"As the selected shipyard for non-combat vessels, Vancouver Shipyards will be responsible for the construction of all Joint Support Ships at their shipyard in North Vancouver, British Columbia. "
- in the heated debate about SSS sourcing it has been stated (I believe it was by the RN) that the ship type could easily be classed as complex, when having tried that on tankers would have been "stretching it"

Canada, having just one for each ocean was sort of forced to combine the functionality, whereas we have the mass that gives the option for specialising... and the benefits of that were fully reaped in the unit cost of the Tide class.
With the current descution it's made me look in to the Canadian JSS for the first time, and IMO I really think its missed opportunity to have a more all round capable vessel.
When they're compared to the karldoorman JSS we see with a small rearangement to in internal lay out ( reducing the lane metrege to 1500 from 2000 ) they could of met everything Canada wants yet give far more in aviation and unloading for amphibious and HADR with the steal beach and LCVP set up.

It's a shame really just think what the RCN could give with 2-3 of them. Contribute to amphibious ops, centre peice of and ASW force, comand and control and good replenishment ?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:the karldoorman JSS we see with a small rearangement to in internal lay out ( reducing the lane metrege to 1500 from 2000 ) they could of met everything Canada wants yet give far more in aviation and unloading for amphibious and HADR with the steal beach and LCVP set up.

It's a shame really just think what the RCN could give with 2-3 of them. Contribute to amphibious ops, centre peice of and ASW force, comand and control and good replenishment ?
This was tried in 2007, and the account written by Henning Jacobsen (a consultant in the selection process) lists the details - and the inevitable outcome:
" Throughout 2007 major increases in requirements emerged and the basic replenishment ship morphed into a support and troop carrier, with roll-on, roll-off capability for some 100 vehicles and 500-600 soldiers, and a command center for directing operations ashore. National Defence’s (DND) ambitions quickly outstripped the cost. The initial budget of $2.9 billion, which included a 10-year in-service support contract, was never realistic for the evolving design. Yet, to be compliant, both teams were compelled to accommodate the growing wish list."
... and then
" bids were reported to be $700 to $800 million over budget. Consequently, the JSS program was cancelled and the government launched a study that led to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, the outcome of which has been the selection of shipyards on the East and West coasts to build combatant vessels non-combatant vessels, respectively."
, which took a little bit of time, to get moving again - after the fiasco.

The piece could well sit on the Canada thread, but is quite a solid lesson and backs the more specialised designs approach, which in our context is feasible.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:the karldoorman JSS we see with a small rearangement to in internal lay out ( reducing the lane metrege to 1500 from 2000 ) they could of met everything Canada wants yet give far more in aviation and unloading for amphibious and HADR with the steal beach and LCVP set up.

It's a shame really just think what the RCN could give with 2-3 of them. Contribute to amphibious ops, centre peice of and ASW force, comand and control and good replenishment ?
This was tried in 2007, and the account written by Henning Jacobsen (a consultant in the selection process) lists the details - and the inevitable outcome:
" Throughout 2007 major increases in requirements emerged and the basic replenishment ship morphed into a support and troop carrier, with roll-on, roll-off capability for some 100 vehicles and 500-600 soldiers, and a command center for directing operations ashore. National Defence’s (DND) ambitions quickly outstripped the cost. The initial budget of $2.9 billion, which included a 10-year in-service support contract, was never realistic for the evolving design. Yet, to be compliant, both teams were compelled to accommodate the growing wish list."
... and then
" bids were reported to be $700 to $800 million over budget. Consequently, the JSS program was cancelled and the government launched a study that led to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, the outcome of which has been the selection of shipyards on the East and West coasts to build combatant vessels non-combatant vessels, respectively."
, which took a little bit of time, to get moving again - after the fiasco.

The piece could well sit on the Canada thread, but is quite a solid lesson and backs the more specialised designs approach, which in our context is feasible.
I complety agree for us keeping the replenishment set up seprate is the right thing especially for carrier ops, but reading in to what the Canadians are getting the karldoorman could do everything require ( with a slight reagrangement ) while also giving them a far better aviation set up, HADR and amphibious set ups.

The karldoorman was what €400m so 2 of these would come in around $1.5bncan leaving $1bn for the 10 year service cost.
Just think what an addition 2-3 of these would be 2 NATO

Like I mentioned above 4 tide and 3 SSS is the way to go but I'd love to see 2 karldoorman to replace the 2 waves and argus ( funded from the planed HADR set up )

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Looks like the recent French Support Ship order may have landed HMG in a spot of bother as unless they are classed as warships they should have been open to competition under EU rules. If they are classed as warships then they should be built in the UK anyway under the NSS rules. Looks like HMG is running out of room to manoeuvre with this decision. Implications for the whole NSS strategy?

"The French Navy has just ordered 4 new Italian-designed Vulcano-class support ships. The French government did not include any foreign bidders in the project but sensibly placed the main contract with the French Naval Group to be built by Chantiers de l’Atlantique in Saint Nazaire. (Some sections will be subcontracted to Fincantieri in Italy due to capacity issues)."
image.jpg
Chair of the Defence Select Committee, Rt Hon Dr Julian Lewis not pulling any punches in a very robustly worded letter to the Minister for Defence Procurement.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/190 ... _Ships.pdf

Interesting article, analysis and background.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/defenc ... ion-rules/

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Aethulwulf »

Poiuytrewq wrote:...If they are classed as warships then they should be built in the UK anyway under the NSS rules. Looks like HMG is running out of room to manoeuvre with this decision. Implications for the whole NSS strategy?
If you read the NSS it says that only aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates will be required to be built in the UK. All other ships, including warships such as amphibs, MCMVs, etc, will be subject to international competition.

Nothing much to do with the EU.

The policy of the current government is not to protect or subsidies the shipbuilding industry, apart from submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates. For these, the government is willing to pay the extra needed to ensure the UK retains the strategic capability to build such vessels.

Very similar to the general industrial strategy of this government - no subsidies or protection for UK industry.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:under EU rules. If they are classed as warships then they should be built in the UK anyway under the NSS rules.
Noteworthy that the EU rules are rules; the NSS has recommendations.
Aethulwulf wrote:If you read the NSS it says that only aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates will be required to be built in the UK. All other ships, including warships such as amphibs, MCMVs, etc
Complex warships has never been defined, though it is the "thin" dividing line
- now: ACC Rule 1 :lol: :yawn: says that the SSS spec (unknown :) ) puts them on the "right"side of that line
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Aethulwulf wrote:Nothing much to do with the EU.
Really? If that's correct why did the Chair of the Defence Select Committee write this,

“if the UK believes that it is wrong to classify FSS ships as warships, the Government has the right to challenge Italy and France over their classification decisions and the consequent single-source procurement. We note that there has been no attempt to do so, which presumably means that you accept that it is legitimate to classify FSS ships as warships”.
Aethulwulf wrote:The policy of the current government is not to protect or subsidies the shipbuilding industry, apart from submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates. For these, the government is willing to pay the extra needed to ensure the UK retains the strategic capability to build such vessels.
Is it the correct policy for the UK to be pursuing?

Why is the Chair of the Defence Select Committee demanding answers from Ministers as to why the decision was taken to structure the NSS in this way? Hence my point on implications for the entire NSS strategy.

For example, I don't think the NSS, in its current form, would survive a change of Government. Especially if the UK is no longer bound by EU procurement rules. At best I think it's safe to view the current National Shipbuilding Strategy as 'temporary'.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Aethulwulf »

It is perfectly legitimate to classify FSS ships as warships. But the already stated UK government policy is not to require all "warships" to be built in the UK, just frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... lowres.pdf

Paragraph 92...
92. It is important to be clear about our policy on
shipbuilding. There are three tenets:
1) For reasons of national security, all Royal Navy warships (destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers) will continue to have a UK-owned design, and, will be built and integrated in the UK. Warship build will be via competition between UK shipyards. But international partners will be encouraged to work with UK shipyards and other
providers to produce the best possible commercial solution.
2) All other naval ships should be subject to open competition (provided that there are no compelling national security reasons to constrain a particular procurement to national providers). Integration of sensitive UK-specific systems will be done in the UK, where possible after competition between UK providers.
3) Defence will take account of wider factors (including the impact on UK prosperity) when making these procurement decisions
Of course, all government policies can and do changed.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

But why did they leave submarines off the list of ships that have to be built in the UK? did they just forget?

.. and why are opponents of the build FSS offshore so hung up on the EU definition of a warship when it doesn't appear to be relevant?

.. and why are Type 31's classified as complex warships (and therefore need to be built in the UK), when everyone knows they will be rather simple ships in order to meet the price cap?

Seems a lot of dumbassery going around.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not to mention the OPVs :mrgreen:

Post Reply